DOCSLIB.ORG

Biological Integrity: a Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management Author(S): James R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biological Integrity: a Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management Author(S): James R Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water Resource Management Author(s): James R. Karr Source: Ecological Applications, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Feb., 1991), pp. 66-84 Published by: Ecological Society of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1941848 . Accessed: 12/03/2014 10:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Ecological Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ecological Applications. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.173.125.76 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:41:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Ecological Applications,1(1), 1991, pp. 66-84 ? 1991 by the Ecological Society of America BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: A LONG-NEGLECTED ASPECT OF WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT1 JAMES R. KARR Departmentof Biology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg,Virginia 24061-0406 USA Abstract. Waterof sufficient quality and quantity is criticalto all life.Increasing human populationand growthof technologyrequire human society to devotemore and more attentionto protectionof adequatesupplies of water.Although perception of biological degradationstimulated current state and federal legislation on thequality of water resources, thatbiological focus was lost in the searchfor easily measured physical and chemical surrogates.The "fishableand swimmable"goal of the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500)and its chargeto "restoreand maintain"biotic integrity illustrate that law's biologicalunderpinning. Further, the need foroperational definitions of termslike "bio- logicalintegrity" and "unreasonabledegradation" and forecologically sound tools to mea- suredivergence from societal goals have increasedinterest in biologicalmonitoring. As- sessmentof water resource quality by sampling biological communities in the field (ambient biologicalmonitoring) is a promisingapproach that requires expanded use of ecological expertise.One suchapproach, the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), providesa broadlybased, multiparametertool for the assessment of biotic integrity in runningwaters. IBI based on fishcommunity attributes has nowbeen applied widely in NorthAmerica. The successof IBI has stimulatedthe development of similarapproaches using other aquatic taxa. Ex- pandeduse of ecologicalexpertise in ambientbiological monitoring is essentialto the protectionof waterresources. Ecologists have theexpertise to contributesignificantly to thoseprograms. Key words: biologicalintegrity; biological monitoring; fish community; Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI); indexesof degradation; indicators; water pollution; water resources. INTRODUCTION AccountingOffice 1987, NationalResource Council Degradationof water resources has longbeen a con- 1987,Simon et al. 1988,Davis and Simon1989, Day cernof human society. Regions with dense human pop- 1989).A GovernmentAccounting Office study (Gen- ulationswere the earliest areas at risk,but watersin eral AccountingOffice 1989) in UnitedStates Envi- isolatedareas have also experienceddegradation. The ronmentalProtection Agency (USEPA) Region 10 earliestanthropogenic threats to waterresources were (NorthwestUnited States) showed that 602 segments oftenassociated with human health, especially disease- of riversand streamsare water-qualitylimited (i.e., causing organismsand oxygen-demandingwastes limitedby chemicalcontamination). Further, a na- (Meybeckand Helmer1989). Early emphasis (e.g., the tionwideUnited States Fish and WildlifeService sur- saprobicsystem: Kolkwitz and Marsson1908, 1909) veyfound reduced fishery potential because of chem- was on controllingthese contaminants in urbanareas icalproblems in 56%ofthe stream segments with water whereeffluents exceeded the natural waste assimilation resourcedegradation (Judy et al. 1984).Of equal con- capabilitiesof waters. An industry developed to collect, cern,the study found that 49% wereimpaired by deg- treat,consolidate, and release household sewage through radationin physical habitat and 67% by flow alteration, point-sourceoutflows. The goal was to see thatthe neitherof whichare treatedby existingUSEPA pro- streams'or lakes' abilityto assimilatethose wastes grams.In 1986,USEPA acknowledgedthat nonpoint werenot exceeded, using the philosophy that "dilution sourcesaffect 65% of impairedstream miles, 76% of is thesolution to pollution."As technologyadvanced, impairedlake acres, and 45% of impaired estuary square chemicaland physicalindicators became the primary miles(General Accounting Office 1989; citing USEPA regulatorytool to protectwater resources. 1986 National WaterQuality Inventory Report to However,continuing declines in the qualityand Congress).From 1972 to 1982,four times more lake quantityof water resources despite massive regulatory acreagedeteriorated than improved in quality(John- effortscall attentionto the inadequaciesof existing son 1989).Because most water resource programs con- programs(EPA 1987, 1988a,c, 1989c, 1990,General centrateon humanhealth rather than a broaderarray of naturalresource issues, many water resource prob- lemspersist (Huber 1989). I Manuscript received 16 October 1989; revised 26 June As human populationsand theirtechnology in- 1990; accepted 27 June 1990. crease,impacts, such as thefollowing, are too diverse This content downloaded from 128.173.125.76 on Wed, 12 Mar 2014 10:41:50 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions February1991 BIOTIC INTEGRITY AND WATER RESOURCES 67 forchemical control approaches to protectthe resource kansas,Rohm et al. 1987),and biologicalcriteria in (Karrand Dudley 1981, Karr et al. 1985b):(a) pro- assessmentsand monitoring (Michael et al. 1989).Fol- ductionof domestic effluents, (b) erosionfollowing al- lowinga detailed,statewide program to evaluateam- terationof landscapes by agriculture, urbanization, and bient(field) biological monitoring, Ohio is incorporat- forestry,(c) alterationof stream channels and lake mar- ingbiological monitoring into regulations for attainment ginsthrough dams, channelization, drainage and filling ofthe goals of the Clean Water Act. An additional16 ofwetlands, and dredgingfor navigation, (d) diversion stateshave activeinterest and 23 otherstates are ex- or otherflow alteration, (e) overharvestof biological pressirnginterest in biocriteria(Marcy 1989). Some resources,and (f)proliferation oftoxic chemicals from (Colorado)retain a toxicand effluent focus while others pointand nonpointsources. Treatment of the impact (Ohio) incorporatea broader biological integrity goal. ofmultiple stresses is in itsinfancy (Preston and Bed- Theseadvances came about because of recognition that ford1988, Cairns and Niederlehner1989). Recogni- waterresource problems involve biological as wellas tionof these problems stimulated research to develop physicochemicaland socioeconomicissues. improvedapproaches for assessing the integrity oreco- Philosophicalshifts within state and federalagencies logicalhealth of waterresource systems (Karr 1981, suggestthat the short-sighted and incomplete approach Karret al. 1986,Ohio EPA 1988,Plafkin et al. 1989). to waterresources management ("making clean water Growingconcern about the need to resolvethe bio- willsolve water resource problems") can be overcome. diversitycrisis (OTA 1987) is a parallelbut broader Replacementof this approach with sophisticated, problem.For thefirst time in severaldecades, the op- quantitativeassessments based on ecologicalprinciples portunityto altersociety's approach to theprotection is morelikely to protectwater resources from the wide ofwater resources presents itself. rangeof human actions that degrade those resources. Severalfederal agencies and manystates are calling Whereasthe foundationsfor these advances have forevaluation and implementationofprograms of di- existedfor perhaps two decades three factors have con- rectbiological monitoring. New philosophiesguide tributedto rapidadvances in thelast decade:(a) the theseefforts and signalmajor shifts that will be instru- developmentof integrativeecological indexes (Karr mentalin "restoringand maintaining"biological in- 1981,Karr et al. 1986,Ohio EPA 1988,Plafkin et al. tegrityof thenation's waters, the explicit mandate of 1989),(b) thedevelopment of the ecoregion approach PL 92-500(Water Quality Act Amendments of 1972) (Hugheset al. 1986,1987, Omernik 1987, Hughes and and amendments.USEPA has calledfor the following: Larsen1988), and (c) recognitionof the importance of (a) inclusionof biologicalcriteria in its water-qualitycumulative impact assessment at regionalscales (Pres- standardsprogram (EPA 1988a), (b) restructuringof ton and Bedford1988). The challengefor basic and existingmonitoring programs to documentthe impact appliedecologists in thenext decade will be to ensure of regulatoryprograms (EPA 1989a), (c) evaluation thatecological principles are used to improvethe na- and controlof nonpointpollution (EPA 1989b),(d) tion'sprograms to protect and manage water resources. coordinationof chemical sampling with biological sur- Anotherbenefit will be theopportunity to conductad- veys(EPA 1984),(e) ecologicalrisk assessment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters a Method and Its Rationale
    Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R. Karr Kurt D. Fausch Paul L. Angermeier Philip R. Yant Isaac J. Schlosser Jordan Creek ---------------- ] Excellent !:: ~~~~~~~~~;~~;~~ ~ :: ,. JPoor --------------- 111 1C tE 2A 28 20 3A SO 3E 4A 48 4C 40 4E Station Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5 September 1986 Printed by authority of the State of Illinois Illinois Natural History Survey 172 Natural Resources Building 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 The Illinois Natural History Survey is pleased to publish this report and make it available to a wide variety of potential users. The Survey endorses the concepts from which the Index of Biotic Integrity was developed but cautions, as the authors are careful to indicate, that details must be tailored to lit the geographic region in which the Index is to be used. Glen C. Sanderson, Chair, Publications Committee, Illinois Natural History Survey R. Weldon Larimore of the Illinois Natural History Survey took the cover photos, which show two reaches ofJordan Creek in east-central Illinois-an undisturbed site and a site that shows the effects of grazing and agricultural activity. Current affiliations of the authors are listed below: James R. Karr, Deputy Director, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama Kurt D. Fausch, Department of Fishery and Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins Paul L. Angermeier, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg Philip R. Yant, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Isaac J. Schlosser, Department of Biology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks VDP-1-3M-9-86 ISSN 0888-9546 Assessing Biological Integrity in Running Waters A Method and Its Rationale James R.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Areas Have Ecological Integrity(3-8)
    Can urban areas have ecological integrity? Reed F. Noss INTRODUCTION The question of whether urban areas can offer a habitat and wildlife within and around urban areas, semblance of the natural world – a vestige (at least) where most people live. But, if we embark on this of ecological integrity – is an important one to many venture, how do we know if we are succeeding? people who live in these areas. As more and more of There are both social and biological measures of the world becomes urbanized, this question becomes success. The social measures include increased highly relevant to the broader mission of maintain- awareness of and appreciation for native wildlife ing the Earth’s biological diversity. and healthy ecosystems. The biological measures are Most people, especially when young, are attracted the subject of my talk this morning; I will focus on to the natural world and living things, Ed Wilson adaptation of the ecological integrity concept to called this attraction “biophilia.” And entire books urban and suburban areas and the role of connectiv- have been written about it – one, for example, by ity (i.e. wildlife corridors) in promoting ecological Steve Kellert, who also appears in this morning’s integrity. program. Personally, I share Wilson’s speculation that biophilia has a genetic basis. Some people are Urban Ecological Integrity biophilic than others. This tendency is very likely Ecological integrity is what we might call an heritable, although it certainly is influenced by the “umbrella concept,” embracing all that is good and environment, particularly by early experiences. My right in ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • 2.0 Managing Native Mesic Forest Remnants
    2.0 MANAGING NATIVE MESIC FOREST REMNANTS Photo by Amy Tsuneyoshi 2.1 RESTORATION CONCEPTS AND PRINCIPLES The word restore means “to bring back…into a former or original state” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 1977). For the purposes of this book, forest restoration assumes that some semblance of a native forest remains and the restoration process is one of removing the causes for that degradation and returning the forest back to a former intact native state. More formally, restoration is defined as: The return of an ecosystem to its historical trajectory by removing or modifying a specific disturbance, and thereby allowing ecological processes to bring about an independent recovery (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group 2004). The term native integrity used throughout this book refers to this continuum of intactness. An area very high in native integrity is fully intact. James Karr (1996) defines biological integrity as: The ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive biological system having the full range of elements (genes, species, and assemblages) and processes (mutation, demography, biotic interactions, nutrient and energy dynamics, and metapopulation processes) expected in the natural habitat of a region. This standard of biological integrity is admittedly beyond the reach of many restoration projects given some of the irreversible effects of invasive plants and animals as well as a lack of knowledge of how an ecosystem worked in the first place. Nonetheless, the goal of a restoration effort should be a restored native area that is healthy, viable, and self-sustaining requiring a minimum amount of active management in the long-term.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of the Biological Integrity of the Native Vegetative Community in a Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Treating Industrial Park Contaminants
    OnLine Journal of Biological Sciences 7 (1): 21-29, 2007 ISSN 1608-4217 © 2007 Science Publications Assessment of The Biological Integrity of The Native Vegetative Community In A Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Treating Industrial Park Contaminants 1C. C. Galbrand, 2A. M. Snow, 2A. E. Ghaly and 1R. Côté 1School of Resources and Environmental Studies 2Department of Process Engineering and Applied Sciences Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3J 2X4 Abstract: A study was conducted to evaluate the biological integrity of a constructed wetland receiving landfill leachate and stormwater runoff from the Burnside Industrial Park, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. The biological integrity of the constructed wetland was tested in the second growing season using vegetative community monitoring. The metrics analyzed were species diversity, species heterogeneity (dominance) and exotic/invasive species abundance. There was no significant difference in the plant species diversity between the constructed wetland and the reference site. However, the constructed wetland supported a higher plant species richness than the reference site. The top three species in the constructed wetland were tweedy’s rush (Juncus brevicaudatus), soft rush (Juncus effusus) and fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata). In total, these three species occupied 46.4% of the sampled population. The top three species in the reference site were soft rush (Juncus effusus), sweetgale (Myrica gale) and woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus). In total, these three species occupied a more reasonable 32.6% of the sampled population. The reference site supported greater biological integrity as it had greater heterogeneity and a smaller abundance of exotic and invasive species compared to the constructed wetland (3.8% versus 10.7%).
    [Show full text]
  • Using Indicators of Biotic Integrity for Assessment of Stream Condition
    Michigan Technological University Digital Commons @ Michigan Tech Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Dissertations, Master's Theses and Master's Reports - Open Reports 2014 USING INDICATORS OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR ASSESSMENT OF STREAM CONDITION Stephanie A. Ogren Michigan Technological University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds Part of the Biology Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons Copyright 2014 Stephanie A. Ogren Recommended Citation Ogren, Stephanie A., "USING INDICATORS OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR ASSESSMENT OF STREAM CONDITION", Dissertation, Michigan Technological University, 2014. https://doi.org/10.37099/mtu.dc.etds/753 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.mtu.edu/etds Part of the Biology Commons, and the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons USING INDICATORS OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY FOR ASSESSMENT OF STREAM CONDITION By Stephanie A. Ogren A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In Biological Sciences MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY 2014 This dissertation has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Biological Sciences Department of Biological Sciences Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Casey J Huckins Committee Member: Dr. Rodney A. Chimner Committee Member: Dr. Amy M. Marcarelli Committee Member: Dr. Eric B. Snyder Department Chair: Dr. Chandrashekhar Joshi Table of Contents Preface ............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICEOF WATER MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Final Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria Text Rick Brandes, Chief Water Quality and Industrial Permits Branch (EN-336) TO: Regional Permits Branch Chiefs (I-X) I have enclosed for your information and use a copy of the recently issued "Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria". This policy was signed by Tudor Davies on June 19, 1991. The content of the policy is also stated in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. One aspect of the policy expresses that water quality standards are to be independently applied. This means that any single assessment method (chemical criteria, toxicity testing, or biocriteria) can provide conclusive evidence that water quality standards are not attained. Apparent conflicts between the three methods should be rare. They can occur because each assessment method is sensitive to different types and ranges of impacts. Therefore, a demonstration of water quality standards nonattain- ment using one assessment method does not necessarily require confirmation with a second method; nor can the failure of a second method to confirm impact, by itself, negate the results of the initial assessment. If you have any questions about the policy, please call Jim Pendergast at FTS 475-9536 or Kathy Smith at FTS 465-9521. Attachment UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 Text MEMORANDUM Text SUBJECT: Transmittal of Final Policy on Biological Assessments and Criteria FROM: Tudor T. Davies, Director Office of Science and Technology (WH-551) TO: Water Management Division Directors Regions I-X Attached is EPA's "Policy on the Use of Biological Assessments and Criteria in the Water Quality Program" (Attachment A): This policy is a significant step toward addressing all pollution problems within a watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • 6 Developing Metrics and Indexes of Biological Integrity
    United States Environmental Office of Water EPA 822-R-02-016 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Methods for evaluating wetland condition #6 Developing Metrics and Indexes of Biological Integrity United States Environmental Office of Water EPA 822-R-02-016 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Methods for evaluating wetland condition #6 Developing Metrics and Indexes of Biological Integrity Major Contributors Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wetland Science Institute Billy M. Teels Oregon State University Paul Adamus Prepared jointly by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Office of Science and Technology) and Wetlands Division (Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds) United States Environmental Office of Water EPA 822-R-02-016 Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002 Notice The material in this document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) technical review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The information contained herein is offered to the reader as a review of the “state of the science” concerning wetland bioassessment and nutrient enrichment and is not intended to be prescriptive guidance or firm advice. Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as conveying official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. Appropriate Citation U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Developing Metrics and Indexes of Biological Integrity. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-016. Acknowledgments EPA acknowledges the contributions of the following people in the writing of this module: Billy M.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Integrity in Urban Forests
    Urban Ecosyst (2012) 15:863–877 DOI 10.1007/s11252-012-0235-6 Ecological integrity in urban forests Camilo Ordóñez & Peter N. Duinker Published online: 4 May 2012 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012 Abstract Ecological integrity has been an umbrella concept guiding ecosystem manage- ment for several decades. Though plenty of definitions of ecological integrity exist, the concept is best understood through related concepts, chiefly, ecosystem health, biodiversity, native species, stressors, resilience and self-maintenance. Discussions on how ecological integrity may be relevant to complex human-nature ecosystems, besides those set aside for conservation, are growing in number. In the case of urban forests, no significant effort has yet been made to address the holistic concept of ecological integrity for the urban forest system. Preliminary connections between goals such as increasing tree health, maintaining canopy cover, and reducing anthropogenic stressors and the general notion of integrity exist. However, other related concepts, such as increasing biodiversity, the planting of native species, and the full meaning of ecosystem health beyond merely tree health have not been addressed profoundly as contributors to urban forest integrity. Meanwhile, other concepts such as resilience to change and self-maintenance are not addressed explicitly. In this paper we reveal two camps of interpretation of ecological integrity for urban forests that in turn rely on a particular definition of the urban forest ecosystem and a set of urban forest values. Convergence and integration of these values is necessary to bring a constructive frame of interpretation of ecological integrity to guide urban forest management into the future. Keywords Urban forests .
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Biological Integrity As a Water Quality Measure an Overview
    Index of Biological Integrity as a Water Quality Measure An Overview Water Quality/Impaired Waters 3.23 • November 2008 iological monitoring tracks the health of plants, fish, insects, and small organisms in lakes, streams Citizen involvement, B and rivers. Researchers use several education and measures of a biological community to outreach, and pollution prevention create an Index of Biological Integrity are key components (IBI). A typical IBI developed for fish will of all TMDL measure eight to 12 attributes related to the implementation diversity and types of species present, plans. including feeding, reproduction, tolerance to human disturbance, abundance, and condition. These help distinguish between natural processes and changes caused by Biological life is human activities. For example, species subjected to the considered tolerant of some form of cumulative effects of all activities, and pollution, such as sedimentation, could including: chemicals in wastewater represents the form a “tolerant” measure. Polluted or treatment discharges; agricultural runoff of condition of their impaired waters would tend to have more pesticides, nutrients, and sediment; flow aquatic environment. of these tolerant species. changes from stream channelization, dams, and artificial drainage; and habitat changes Ratings assigned to each measure are from agricultural, urban, and residential summed up in a score indicating the development. Testing water quality by MPCA Offices: underlying biological integrity or “health” chemistry only can fail to detect these Rochester: of a particular water body. A high IBI wider impacts. 507/285-7343 score indicates biological species similar to Mankato: least-impacted (reference) sites of Aquatic organisms spend all or a vast 507/389-5977 Marshall: comparable size and type in the same majority of their life cycles in the water.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Ecological Integrity Within Protected Areas
    Articles Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological Integrity within Protected Areas JEFFREY D. PARRISH, DAVID P. BRAUN, AND ROBERT S. UNNASCH Managers of protected areas are under increasing pressure to measure their effectiveness in conserving native biological diversity in ways that are scientifically sound, practical, and comparable among protected areas over time. The Nature Conservancy and its partners have developed a “Measures of Success” framework with four core components: (1) identifying a limited number of focal conservation targets, (2) identifying key ecological attributes for these targets, (3) identifying an acceptable range of variation for each attribute as measured by properly selected indicators, and (4) rating target status based on whether or not the target’s key attributes are within their acceptable ranges of variation.A target cannot be considered “conserved” if any of its key ecological attributes exceeds its acceptable range of variation. The framework provides a rigorous basis not only for measuring success but for setting conservation objectives, assessing threats to biodiversity, identifying monitoring and research needs, and communicating management information to nonspecialists. Keywords: monitoring, ecological integrity, protected area effectiveness, measures of success re we conserving what we say we are? This a growing skepticism among policymakers and funding agen- Aquestion is increasingly asked of and by protected area cies about the long-term value of these conservation efforts managers worldwide. The answers, unfortunately, remain (Senge 1994, Salafsky and Margoluis 1999a, Salafsky et al. ambiguous at best. Conservationists and protected area man- 2001). agers around the world spend millions of dollars each year to In response, several institutions have developed systems for conserve biodiversity (Castro and Locker 2000, WRI 2000).
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Integrity Versus Biological Diversity As Policy
    BiologicalIntegrity versus Biological Diversity as Policy Directives Protecting biotic resources Paul L. Angermeier and James R. Karr wo phrases-biologicalinteg- advanced on ecological impacts in rity and biological diversity- Resource would these systems (e.g., Allan and Flecker have joined the lexicon of policy 1993, Schindler 1990), and rates of biologists and natural resource man- be most effective if extinction and endangerment for agers during the past two decades. aquatic fauna exceed those for ter- The importance of these phrases is the goal were the restrial fauna. Among North Ameri- demonstrated by their influence on can animals, for example, Master environmental research, regulatory, protection of (1990) reported that 20% of fishes, and policy agendas. The concepts 36% of crayfishes, and 55% of behind the phrases are central to biological integrity mussels were extinct or imperiled, strategies being developed to sus- compared with 7% of mammals and tain global resources (Lubchenco et birds. Similarly, only 4% of the fed- al. 1991). Unfortunately, the phrases Park Act enunciate the explicit goal erally protected aquatic species in are widely used by the media, citi- of protecting biological integrity. the United States with recovery plans zens, policy makers, and some bi- No specific legislative mandate ex- have recovered significantly, com- ologists without adequate attention ists to protect biological diversity in pared with 20% of protected terres- to the concepts they embody. Pre- the United States, but such protec- trial species (Williams and Neves cise use of the terms integrity and tion became a central goal of the 1992). diversity can help set and achieve 1992 Earth Summit and the Global societal for goals sustaining global Biodiversity Protocol endorsed by Defining biological diversity resources; imprecise or inappro- many nations.
    [Show full text]
  • Litchfield Habitat Management Plan
    HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN LITCHFIELD WETLAND MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LITCHFIELD, MINNESOTA US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR January 25, 2012 Habitat Management Plan For Litchfield WMD APPROVALS Action Signature I Name Date // Prepared By: ~ / (]t. :£1.--"--cl- ·/1"·///z /·31-Zt/i /' Wildlife Biologist Submitted By: ~:.l-~ {- 3/-cJ0/2 -·· Refuge Manager/Proje Leader ! ~ ' ~~i Reviewed By: +-c®ttu;.~ -~ t . I ~ . .?.a l·;a- Regional Refuge iologist Reviewed By: \0AHvA ,~_Jl_ Ref~~per;sor ~--]~-/~ Approved By: ~,;3;/;;_ za~Regional Refuge Chief Litchfield Wetland Management District Habitat Management Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents i Executive Summary ii 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Scope and Rationale 2 1.2 Legal Mandates 2 1.3 Relationship to Other Plans 3 2.0 Background 5 2.1 Refuge Location and Description 5 2.2 Management Units 6 2.3 Physical/Geographic Setting and Historic Condition 9 2.4 Habitat Changes from Historic to Current Condition 14 3.0 Resources of Concern 19 3.1 Introduction 19 3.2 Potential Resources of Concern 19 3.3 Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health 20 3.4 Priority Resources of Concern 21 3.5 Priority Habitat Types 31 3.6 Conflicting Habitat Needs 32 4.0 Habitat Goals and Objectives 33 4.1 Remnant (Native) Prairie 33 4.2 Planted Grasslands 34 4.3 Temporary and Seasonal Wetlands 36 4.4 Semi-permanent Wetlands 37 4.5 Permanent Wetlands and Shallow Lakes 38 5.0 Habitat Management Strategies and Prescriptions 40 Remnant Native Prairie 40 Planted Prairie 41 Temporary and Seasonal Wetlands
    [Show full text]